ADINATH NAGARI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR. vs. ITO, WARD-2, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Despite of various notices of hearing issued during the appellate proceedings, there was non-compliance by the assessee which resulted in an ex-parte order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, dismissing the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds of appeal:

The Ld.AR submitted that non-compliance to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was not intentional and it was due to miscommunication between the assessee and earlier tax consultant that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and, therefore, humbly prayed that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite explanation/details/documents.

The Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that since the assessee failed to make any submissions in spite of several opportunities granted, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was completely justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the Ld. representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was non-compliance by the assessee to the notice(s) issued by the Ld.AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, which constrained them to pass an ex-parte order qua the assessee. We observe that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order without himself going into the merits of the case due to lack of any explanation or evidence filed by the assessee regarding the nature and source of investments made in unlisted securities during the 4 relevant AY under consideration. Before us, Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the non-compliance by the assessee was not intentional, but it resulted due to lack of proper guidance and miscommunication between the assessee and its earlier tax consultant. It is his submission that the assessee is keen to ensure complete and total compliance as so required before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and the present situation is simply a fall-out of communication gap. He, therefore, humbly prayed that since the assessee has a strong case on merits, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate its case before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite explanation/details/documents. No doubt, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal where the assessee does not prosecute its appeal in spite of several opportunities, nonetheless, he has to adhere to legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be sent back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudicating the assessee‟s appeal before him afresh, as per fact and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date, without seeking any adjournment, unless required for a sufficient cause failing which the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. We hold and direct

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////